more wind turbines

[sandy01]

Just to throw in another thought.
What about the carbon cost of the turbines?
First you have the carbon cost of producing the materials, then all the assembly etc,
transporting to the site.
Then we come to the site itself. How about the carbon cost of all the trucks, running back and forth with the hardcore for the road, and the machines doing the digging and levelling, not forgetting the machines etc in the quarry digging the rock.
Then you have the concreting of the bases.
How big is the carbon footprint sofar??
How about the destruction of the greenery etc, that removes carbon from the air.
And then there is the maintenence vehicles to keep them working.
Need I go on?
Last question, Will these turbines ever pay back their own carbon footprint????

[Rheghead]

Just to throw in another thought.
What about the carbon cost of the turbines?

http://www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_c...udit-Guide.pdf

But one thing to bear in mind is that in this study, they have asserted that 100% oxidation of the peat occurs over the lifetime of the turbines without any justification. No peat cutter worth his salt could claim the same thing occurs near to peat banks that have been unexcavated over the last 25 years, so the report is biased against wind energy in that sense. It goes without saying then that this oxidation is claimed to amount to 66% of the carbon cost.

[Angel]

that's one of the things I was trying to say sandy about the construction of it all...

I would love the animated gif "Welcomefamily"... I am not a scientist but other feilds of developement are in experimental stages I believe... something to do with plasma... as well as solar stuff... as well as all this lots of stuff now runs on 12v anyway even if you plug it into the mains...
What I am saying is I don't believe these wind turbines even cover their own costs...

Angel

[Welcomefamily]

Yes I will agree windmills dont have to be the be all and end all, if some thing better comes along then they can all come down. They might sell me one it would look nice in my back garden with a climbing honeysuckle growing up it.

[ywindythesecond]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond
So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire

Reggy said;“Have you just made all that up or have you got some reference?

No I haven’t made it up, much of it comes from OFGEM’s Report Transmission investment for renewable generation -Final proposals December 2004 288/04
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf

This is OFGEM’s rationale for supporting the Beauly/Denny pylon upgrade and essentially they argue that windfarms being so profitable they are bound to be built in the Highlands, and if the grid is not capable of taking their output, then the compensation payable to the generators will be much more than the estimated £332M for the upgrade.

So Reggy, back to your post. What you say is sound engineering, but the energy business is no longer run on sound engineering principles, it is run for the benefit of shareholders, and really strange decisions are made. In the OFGEM report, this is said:

3.24. For the interconnector, the analysis of the likely savings in constraint costs is
particularly sensitive to the assumptions about how the existing conventional
power stations in Scotland will be operated.

Figure 5 compares project and constraint costs assuming that the two main conventional power stations,
Longannet and Cockenzie, either close (or operate only when wind generation is idle) or continue to operate according to their historical pattern of outputs.

OFGEM clearly acknowledges the prospect of coal-fired power stations being used for wind back-up, and indeed also nuclear.

Just as the energy business has been hijacked by the profit motive, so has the Green Movement. I applaud the profit motive generally but the ROCs system and other market mechanisms have turned us into milk cows and the damage to our economy, energy supply, ecology, and the lives of thousands of people, are being sacrificed for profit and greed. And I am a life-long Tory.

It is no longer possible to apply sound engineering principles to the way energy is run.

Reggy Quote :
Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW).

But additional Conventional back-up would be required. Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nations electricity needs. So after 10%, all additional wind power relied upon to provide “our nation’s electricity needs” requires additional conventional back-up.

Reggy Quote:
Sources of intermittency on the UK National Grid
The largest source of intermittency on the UK National Grid is the power stations; in fact, the single largest source is Sizewell B nuclear power station. Whenever Sizewell B is operating the entire 1.3GW output is liable to stop at any time without warning. This is an interesting use of “intermittency”. A shutdown every 18 months doesn’t describe what most people would consider intermittent.

Paradoxically, although wind power is inherently intermittent and variable it is in fact much more reliable than conventional plant. Consider a 660 MW plant, which could be replaced by perhaps 900 x 3MW wind turbines to give the same annual output of energy. On a day when wind strength is enough to give a total output of 600 MW, then these simply cannot all fail simultaneously, since a drop in wind would not affect all stations equally at the same time.

Firstly, consider that 900 3MW turbines are required to give the same annual output as one conventional power station. And occasionally they don’t give any power. And occasionally they give lots of power when it is not needed. Mostly they give an amount of power, but nobody knows what it will be, nor when. That seems to sum up “intermittent” to most people.


Secondly, consider that wind power is “ much more reliable than conventional plant”
because it fails gradually, not suddenly. This is basically the same argument that a stopped watch is more reliable than one which is two minutes slow because the stopped one at least is right twice a day but the slow one is never right.

Furthermore, the most reliable form of wind forecasting is to simply look at the total output of the wind turbine themselves – in all probability, what they are producing at one point in time, is likely to be produced one hour later, or only a small change from that. If this prediction window is decreased – 20 minutes, 10 minutes 5 minutes, the difference in total national wind power output becomes less and less, and even at 5 minutes, that is ample time to raise or lower spinning reserve accordingly.

So spinning reserve has to be able to cope with the worst case scenario. It doesn’t always have to be spinning, but it has to be available. At the level of wind generation proposed, there just aren’t enough conventional power plants, so we need to build more.

There is thus ample time to cope with these changes by calling up or standing down more or less plant. If the 5 minute estimates are wrong then the Frequency Service and Reserve Service diesels will clearly have the resilience to cope with it.

What are these?

However, I think EON may change their assessment on that 8% if they had known about a study carried out in the US which suggested 30% could be relied upon.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tpo112107.php
__________________
A Convenient Solution

EON based their evidence to the House of Lords on available hard facts. The link you gave did not suggest 30% could be relied on. The relevant quote is:
They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power.

They didn’t report the minimum. Arithmetic says 19%. Commonsense says less.

[The Pepsi Challenge]

Does anyone else reckon Caithness has been "written off" as a wind-farm haven?

[Melancholy Man]

Get the Army in to protect the turbines.

[Rheghead]

Madpict, Sir David King is one of the biggest advocates of what the IPCC are trying to do. He was instrumental in getting UK to sign up to a target of 20% renewables by 2020. What he is saying is that 20% of our electrical energy is a realistic target for renewable generation. Nobody is actually suggesting that figure can be pushed further to make all our energy be 20% renewable without commercial repercussions like investment in storage across the grid. He is just making it clear that we can't make 20% of our total energy requirements renewablle without making some inroads into transport and space heating etc.

[MadPict]

Get the Army in to protect the turbines.

They might have to if the Windiban insurgents decide to act....

Rheghead,
This bit made me laugh though...

However Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of British Wind Energy Association countered: "We don't have to pay for wind power it just comes to us naturally and is totally sustainable".

We don't have to pay? Hmmm......

[Rheghead]

So Reggy, back to your post. What you say is sound engineering, but the energy business is no longer run on sound engineering principles, it is run for the benefit of shareholders, and really strange decisions are made. In the OFGEM report, this is said:
OFGEM clearly acknowledges the prospect of coal-fired power stations being used for wind back-up, and indeed also nuclear.

I don't think the Grid can compromise engineering safety/soundness for profit gain because the first time they try it then they will come unstuck. Incidentally, there are nuclear power stations that are capable of load following.

But additional Conventional back-up would be required. Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nations electricity needs. So after 10%, all additional wind power relied upon to provide “our nation’s electricity needs” requires additional conventional back-up.

Firstly, consider that 900 3MW turbines are required to give the same annual output as one conventional power station. And occasionally they don’t give any power. And occasionally they give lots of power when it is not needed. Mostly they give an amount of power, but nobody knows what it will be, nor when. That seems to sum up “intermittent” to most people.

This is an interesting use of “intermittency”. A shutdown every 18 months doesn’t describe what most people would consider intermittent.

The fact which you aren't addressing is that we already have conventional power plants backing up more conventional power plants. That is squandering fossil fuels. Because of the extra (paradoxical) reliability that wind provides, the back up for wind would take the form of hot standby. It is conventional power plants that require great amounts of spinning reserve back up.

And wind isn't strictly defined as a 'intermittent' power source, it is more accurate to call it 'variable'. Intermittent suggests an either on/off nature which perfectly describes the random nature of large scale ower plant outages, which are seen on a more numerous basis than 18 months like you suggested.

So spinning reserve has to be able to cope with the worst case scenario. It doesn’t always have to be spinning, but it has to be available. At the level of wind generation proposed, there just aren’t enough conventional power plants, so we need to build more.

Can you exlain why we need to build more capacity to back up windpower? What is happening to the existing capacity which is being used, is it lying idle, why can't that be used? We already have capacity, we just need to replace it as it is aging.

So going back to your original question, wind power will provide energy security both in terms of free from political interference of sourcing fossil fuels and in a technical sense.

[ywindythesecond]

OFGEM’s Report Transmission investment for renewable generation -Final proposals December 2004 288/04
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf


You haven't read this yet Reggy have you, nor have you read the responses to the House of Lords Select Committee.

The references you quoted to support your arguments acknowledge that new back-up plant is required for only 10% reliance on wind. "Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). "

The 18 month major outage frequency was not my suggestion, it came from your reference.
"An industry wide rate of unplanned scrams of 0.6 per 7000 hours critical, means that such a shut down without warning is expected to happen about once every year and a half."

I had hoped for an informed debate but you simply fudging the answers as usual has scuppered that. Over and out.
ywy2

[Rheghead]

OFGEM’s Report Transmission investment for renewable generation -Final proposals December 2004 288/04
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf


You haven't read this yet Reggy have you, nor have you read the responses to the House of Lords Select Committee.

I skipped through the main points and it was totally irrelevent to your assertion that coal would be used to follow the load which was provided by wind power. IOW, it was all flannel.

The references you quoted to support your arguments acknowledge that new back-up plant is required for only 10% reliance on wind. "Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). "

Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.

The 18 month major outage frequency was not my suggestion, it came from your reference.
"An industry wide rate of unplanned scrams of 0.6 per 7000 hours critical, means that such a shut down without warning is expected to happen about once every year and a half."

You have only quoted the outage rate of one form of baseload, ie nuclear just 17% of our energy. What about the other generation plants, gas, coal etc which suffer more numerous incidents. Spinning reserve is to provide for this. So the frequency will be a lot higher, therefore the term 'intermittency' is more relevent when referring to conventional power generation that it is for wind.

I had hoped for an informed debate ...
ywy2

Indeed, I am still waiting...